<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly &#187; Real Property</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nclawyersweekly.com/category/opinion-digest/real-property/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 20:46:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Real Property &#8211; Contract – No Meeting of the Minds – Restrictions – Specific Performance&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/real-property-contract-no-meeting-of-the-minds-restrictions-specific-performance/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/real-property-contract-no-meeting-of-the-minds-restrictions-specific-performance/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 15:37:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ericahampton</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals Unpublished]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[commercial purposes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=73093</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Nall Farm Road, LLC v. Watson </em>  The parties’ agreement to transfer real property said, “There must be no restriction, easement, zoning, or other governmental regulation that would prevent the reasonable use of the Property for 2 Residential homes, no mobile homes, no multifamily purposes.” Given that clause, the defendant-seller’s rejection of a deed which had no restrictions, and her proposal of a deed restricting use of the property to two single-family homes, the trial court could find that there was no meeting of the minds as to the permitted use of the property at issue.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/real-property-contract-no-meeting-of-the-minds-restrictions-specific-performance/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Real Property &#8211; Homeowners’ HAMP &amp; Contract Claims Dismissed&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/26/real-property-homeowners-hamp-contract-claims-dismissed-2/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/26/real-property-homeowners-hamp-contract-claims-dismissed-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2013 15:50:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mortgage servicer]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=72597</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Spaulding v. Wells Fargo Bank NA</em> Maryland homeowners who were denied a mortgage loan modification under the federal Home Affordable Modification Program cannot sue their mortgage servicer Wells Fargo Bank under HAMP or under various state law theories of recovery, and the 4th Circuit upholds dismissal of their lawsuit.
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/26/real-property-homeowners-hamp-contract-claims-dismissed-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Real PropertyTort/Negligence – Fraud – Hog Farm – Spray Easement – Contract – Meeting of the Minds&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/23/real-propertytortnegligence-fraud-hog-farm-spray-easement-contract-meeting-of-the-minds/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/23/real-propertytortnegligence-fraud-hog-farm-spray-easement-contract-meeting-of-the-minds/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:58:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals Unpublished]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hog houses]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=72495</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Adams v. Kalmar </em> Plaintiff Ronnie Adams did not fraudulently induce defendant Kalmar to grant plaintiffs a larger area for their spray easement than plaintiffs actually needed for their hog farming operation. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/23/real-propertytortnegligence-fraud-hog-farm-spray-easement-contract-meeting-of-the-minds/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Real Property &#8211; Municipal &#8212; Condemnation &#8212; § 108 Hearing – All Issues But Compensation – Unity &amp; Access – Appeals&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/18/real-property-municipal-condemnation-%c2%a7-108-hearing-all-issues-but-compensation-unity-access-appeals/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/18/real-property-municipal-condemnation-%c2%a7-108-hearing-all-issues-but-compensation-unity-access-appeals/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:36:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unified property]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=72378</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>City of Wilson v. Batten Family, L.L.C. </em>  In this condemnation case, after notice and a hearing pursuant to G.S. § 136-108, the trial court entered an order which said it decided all issues other than compensation. If defendant wanted the issue of access to Bloomery Road decided, it should have appealed the trial court’s order within 30 days rather than waiting more than a year and then asking for another § 108 hearing.
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/18/real-property-municipal-condemnation-%c2%a7-108-hearing-all-issues-but-compensation-unity-access-appeals/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Real Property &#8211; Contract – Implied in Fact – Private Road &amp; Lake Upkeep – Easement&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/17/real-property-contract-implied-in-fact-private-road-lake-upkeep-easement/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/17/real-property-contract-implied-in-fact-private-road-lake-upkeep-easement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2013 13:02:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Property]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=72323</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em> Lake Toxaway Community Association, Inc. v. RYF Enterprises, LLC </em> The trial court’s uncontested findings of fact show that defendant and its predecessors used the lake and private roads within Lake Toxaway Estates, thereby benefiting from having well-maintained private roads and a well-maintained lake and dam. These findings of fact support the trial court’s conclusion that, implicit in defendant’s acceptance of the benefits of using the roads and the lake was an agreement to pay for the maintenance and repair of the roads and lake.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/17/real-property-contract-implied-in-fact-private-road-lake-upkeep-easement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Real Property &#8211; HOA Wins Challenge to Exclusive Cable Contract&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/12/real-property-hoa-wins-challenge-to-exclusive-cable-contract/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/12/real-property-hoa-wins-challenge-to-exclusive-cable-contract/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2013 20:36:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cable TV]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=72236</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[,em>Lansdowne on the Potomac HOA Inc. v. OpenBand at Lansdowne</em> A cable provider’s exclusive contract to provide cable services to a real estate development violated an FCC order that prohibited such exclusivity arrangements, and the 4th Circuit affirms judgment for the homeowners’ association that successfully challenged the contract.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/12/real-property-hoa-wins-challenge-to-exclusive-cable-contract/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Real Property &#8211; Subdivision Roads &#8212; Maintenance Responsibility – Deed – Developer to HOA&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/09/real-property-subdivision-roads-maintenance-responsibility-deed-developer-to-hoa/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/09/real-property-subdivision-roads-maintenance-responsibility-deed-developer-to-hoa/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2013 15:18:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals Unpublished]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Homeowners' Association]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=72091</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Carolina Coast &#38; Lakes, Inc. v. The Shores at Land’s End Homeowners’ Association, Inc. </em>  The provisions of the deed from the developer to the homeowners’ association could be read to transfer responsibility for upkeep of the subdivision’s roads to the HOA immediately or only when the roads were eligible for takeover by the N.C. Department of Transportation – which has yet to occur for some of the subdivision’s roads.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/09/real-property-subdivision-roads-maintenance-responsibility-deed-developer-to-hoa/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Real Property &#8211; Fraud Claim Not Preempted by HOLA&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/03/27/real-property-fraud-claim-not-preempted-by-hola/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/03/27/real-property-fraud-claim-not-preempted-by-hola/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 2013 17:43:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[home loan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=71704</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>McCauley v. Home Loan Investment Bank FSB </em>  A plaintiff who defaulted on her home loan and complained about an inflated appraisal, unfair loan terms and a rushed loan closing may sue the lender for fraud under state law, as that claim is not preempted by the federal Home Owners’ Loan Act, but her unconscionability claim is preempted under 12 C.F.R. § 560.2 and the 4th Circuit upholds dismissal of the latter claim.
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/03/27/real-property-fraud-claim-not-preempted-by-hola/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Real Property &#8211; Mortgages &#8212; Foreclosure &#8212; ‘Holder’ – UCC&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/03/27/real-property-mortgages-foreclosure-holder-ucc/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/03/27/real-property-mortgages-foreclosure-holder-ucc/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 2013 14:45:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[promissory note]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=71674</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em> In re Foreclosure of Deed of Trust from Perry </em>  Where petitioner maintained possession of respondent’s original promissory note , and where the note was endorsed from the original lender to the order of petitioner, petitioner was the holder of the promissory note and entitled to enforce the instrument and seek foreclosure pursuant to G.S. § 45-21.16.
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/03/27/real-property-mortgages-foreclosure-holder-ucc/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Real Property &#8211; Foreclosure – Civil Practice – Void Judgment – Transfer Set Aside&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/03/27/real-property-foreclosure-civil-practice-void-judgment-transfer-set-aside/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/03/27/real-property-foreclosure-civil-practice-void-judgment-transfer-set-aside/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 2013 13:44:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals Unpublished]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Homeowners' Association]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=71658</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>In re Proposed Foreclosure against Zheng </em> After the trial court determined that the respondents’ homeowners’ association failed to give respondents proper notice of the foreclosure on respondents’ property, the trial court could set aside the sale of respondents’ property to the appellant-purchaser according to the interpretation of G.S. § 1-108 set out in Town of Cary v. Stallings, 97 N.C. App. 484, 389 S.E.2d 143 (1990).

We affirm the order of the trial court deeming the foreclosure deed void and setting it aside.

]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/03/27/real-property-foreclosure-civil-practice-void-judgment-transfer-set-aside/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
